<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Alarmist plagiarises comments from sceptic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/10/alarmist-plagiarises-comments-from-sceptic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/10/alarmist-plagiarises-comments-from-sceptic/</link>
	<description>Taking the heat out of global warming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:24:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob D</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/10/alarmist-plagiarises-comments-from-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-20715</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=1385#comment-20715</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s what I posted in response to &#039;Steve&#039;:

Steve:
You&#039;re a little out of date, mate.  All your sources are old, and somewhat amusing, considering the wealth of knowledge there is out there now showing just how weak these arguments are.  I had a good laugh when you even provided a link to the infamous &#039;hockey stick&#039; graph!  If you&#039;re going to join the AGW debate you&#039;re going to have to come up to speed.

The fact is that Basic Physics, as you put it (your 1st link goes nowhere), provides for a theoretical 1.0ºC warming due to a doubling of CO2 from 280ppmv, according to the IPCC (TAR) [alpha=5.35].  Any other theoretical warming is due to feedbacks.  These feedbacks were until recently &lt;a href=&quot;http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;largely uncertain&lt;/a&gt;, according to NASA.  

Positive feedbacks raise the warming level, negative feedbacks lower it.  Up to now the models have always assumed positive feedbacks from clouds.  In fact we now know from ERBE observations that these feedbacks are negative.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lindzen and Choi, GRL, 2009.&lt;/a&gt;  This means the total warming is in fact &lt;i&gt;less&lt;/i&gt; than 1ºC, nearer 0.5ºC in the tropics, slightly more at higher latitudes.  In other words the sensitivity is much lower than expected by the IPCC.  This is consistent with the observed climate response we&#039;re seeing.  It also explains why all the models are so wrong, and why none of them predicted the current cooling.

And on warming: we know the planet warmed from 1976 to 1998, when it reached its recent record high.  That was not surprising - the PDO was in its positive phase.  Now it&#039;s gone negative, &lt;a href=&quot;http://i32.tinypic.com/dbl3ec.jpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and we&#039;re cooling&lt;/a&gt;.  Experts are predicting another 20-30 years of cooling, in spite of the increasing CO2.  This of course confirms that CO2 doesn&#039;t drive climate to any appreciable degree, and any effect it may have is easily swamped by natural variations.

Regarding some of your other points - the Arctic sea ice extent is recovering at almost half a million square kilometers a year, the Antarctic ice is increasing, hurricane activity is at a 30-year low, droughts have been decreasing, as have extreme floods.  Sea level rise slowed recently by a whopping 60%, mainly due to the oceans cooling.  Look it up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s what I posted in response to &#8216;Steve&#8217;:</p>
<p>Steve:<br />
You&#8217;re a little out of date, mate.  All your sources are old, and somewhat amusing, considering the wealth of knowledge there is out there now showing just how weak these arguments are.  I had a good laugh when you even provided a link to the infamous &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; graph!  If you&#8217;re going to join the AGW debate you&#8217;re going to have to come up to speed.</p>
<p>The fact is that Basic Physics, as you put it (your 1st link goes nowhere), provides for a theoretical 1.0ºC warming due to a doubling of CO2 from 280ppmv, according to the IPCC (TAR) [alpha=5.35].  Any other theoretical warming is due to feedbacks.  These feedbacks were until recently <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/" rel="nofollow">largely uncertain</a>, according to NASA.  </p>
<p>Positive feedbacks raise the warming level, negative feedbacks lower it.  Up to now the models have always assumed positive feedbacks from clouds.  In fact we now know from ERBE observations that these feedbacks are negative.  See <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">Lindzen and Choi, GRL, 2009.</a>  This means the total warming is in fact <i>less</i> than 1ºC, nearer 0.5ºC in the tropics, slightly more at higher latitudes.  In other words the sensitivity is much lower than expected by the IPCC.  This is consistent with the observed climate response we&#8217;re seeing.  It also explains why all the models are so wrong, and why none of them predicted the current cooling.</p>
<p>And on warming: we know the planet warmed from 1976 to 1998, when it reached its recent record high.  That was not surprising &#8211; the PDO was in its positive phase.  Now it&#8217;s gone negative, <a href="http://i32.tinypic.com/dbl3ec.jpg" rel="nofollow">and we&#8217;re cooling</a>.  Experts are predicting another 20-30 years of cooling, in spite of the increasing CO2.  This of course confirms that CO2 doesn&#8217;t drive climate to any appreciable degree, and any effect it may have is easily swamped by natural variations.</p>
<p>Regarding some of your other points &#8211; the Arctic sea ice extent is recovering at almost half a million square kilometers a year, the Antarctic ice is increasing, hurricane activity is at a 30-year low, droughts have been decreasing, as have extreme floods.  Sea level rise slowed recently by a whopping 60%, mainly due to the oceans cooling.  Look it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/10/alarmist-plagiarises-comments-from-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-20714</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=1385#comment-20714</guid>
		<description>Nicely said, Bob, and I entirely agree. When I discovered the plagiarism I left a terse comment with Carbon Dave which I expect has already been tipped into the bit bucket. It says simply:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Dave: Don&#039;t plagiarise my comments. Don&#039;t claim you&#039;ve posted all comments when you haven&#039;t. I&#039;m still waiting for you to &quot;debunk&quot; the assertion that the climate is not warming dangerously.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Please, kids, don&#039;t try this at home. I mean, don&#039;t hold your breath on a reply.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nicely said, Bob, and I entirely agree. When I discovered the plagiarism I left a terse comment with Carbon Dave which I expect has already been tipped into the bit bucket. It says simply:</p>
<blockquote><p>Dave: Don&#8217;t plagiarise my comments. Don&#8217;t claim you&#8217;ve posted all comments when you haven&#8217;t. I&#8217;m still waiting for you to &#8220;debunk&#8221; the assertion that the climate is not warming dangerously.</p></blockquote>
<p>Please, kids, don&#8217;t try this at home. I mean, don&#8217;t hold your breath on a reply.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob D</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2009/10/alarmist-plagiarises-comments-from-sceptic/comment-page-1/#comment-20713</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=1385#comment-20713</guid>
		<description>Wow, straight plagiarism, no shame at all.  Copy-and-paste because he couldn&#039;t think of those words himself.  Did he really think you wouldn&#039;t notice?

He also claims to have posted all the comments. Yours was obviously censored then stolen, mine just disappeared into the ether when I challenged &#039;Steve&#039; on his totally out-dated claims.

It&#039;s an interesting observation that the sceptics are always willing to publish adverse points of view and debate them, even though it often means taking unwarranted personal attacks in the process.  Look at WattsUpWithThat, or ClimateAudit or any of these.

On the other hand the alarmists are constantly deleting or editing &#039;difficult&#039; posts they can&#039;t answer (RealClimate and Open Mind are the most famous for this, but ClimateProgress is similar), and they do it without even a glimmer of conscience.

It forces the conclusion that the sceptics want to try to be right, while the alarmists only want to appear to be right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, straight plagiarism, no shame at all.  Copy-and-paste because he couldn&#8217;t think of those words himself.  Did he really think you wouldn&#8217;t notice?</p>
<p>He also claims to have posted all the comments. Yours was obviously censored then stolen, mine just disappeared into the ether when I challenged &#8216;Steve&#8217; on his totally out-dated claims.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s an interesting observation that the sceptics are always willing to publish adverse points of view and debate them, even though it often means taking unwarranted personal attacks in the process.  Look at WattsUpWithThat, or ClimateAudit or any of these.</p>
<p>On the other hand the alarmists are constantly deleting or editing &#8216;difficult&#8217; posts they can&#8217;t answer (RealClimate and Open Mind are the most famous for this, but ClimateProgress is similar), and they do it without even a glimmer of conscience.</p>
<p>It forces the conclusion that the sceptics want to try to be right, while the alarmists only want to appear to be right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

